Introduction

The case of Zee College Of Pharmacy Unnao Thru. Director And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rech. Edu. Lko And Others adjudicated by the Allahabad High Court on November 2, 2020, marks a significant precedent in the realm of pharmacy education in India. This case addresses the conflict between the Pharmacy Council of India’s (PCI) national policies and the State Government of Uttar Pradesh’s (U.P.) decision to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the establishment of additional Bachelor in Pharmacy (B.Pharm) courses. The petitioners, comprising several pharmacy colleges, challenged the refusal of the State Review Committee to grant NOCs, a decision that was grounded in concerns over the surplus of existing institutions and student admissions exceeding capacity in certain districts.

Summary of the Judgment

The Allahabad High Court examined whether the State Government of U.P. had the authority to override the PCI's national policy decisions regarding the establishment of new pharmacy courses. The State Review Committee had refused NOCs to the petitioners based on a policy to limit new courses in districts with existing surplus capacity. However, the High Court, referencing previous Supreme Court judgments and the established legal framework, held that the PCI is the apex statutory body governing pharmacy education in India. Consequently, the State Government and its committees cannot contravene the PCI's policies. The court set aside the State's decision, permitting the petitioner institutions to participate in the admission process for the B.Pharm course for the academic year 2020-21.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily relied on two landmark Supreme Court cases:

• Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Kerala State: This case addressed the authority of state governments versus apex bodies like the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The Supreme Court held that state policies cannot override the decisions of AICTE, emphasizing that central bodies have the final say in their respective domains.
• State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya: Reinforcing the view from Jaya Gokul, this case reiterated that central statutory bodies hold supremacy over state policies in technical education. The Supreme Court clarified that entities like the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) possess ultimate authority, rendering state interference baseless.

Additionally, the High Court referenced the Supreme Court decision in The Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. S.K. Toshiwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy, which affirmed PCI’s role as the apex authority in pharmacy education, overriding any state-level directives.

Legal Reasoning

The Allahabad High Court's legal reasoning centered on the hierarchical structure of educational regulatory bodies. By dissecting relevant statutes and preceding judgments, the court established that the PCI, under the Pharmacy Act of 1948, possesses comprehensive authority over pharmacy education nationwide. The court highlighted that state governments or their committees lack the jurisdiction to contravene PCI's statutes and policies. The decision underscored that compliance with national standards set by apex bodies is mandatory and that state-level policy considerations are subordinate in the regulatory framework.

Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications for the governance of pharmacy education in India. Primarily, it reaffirms the PCI's authoritative role, ensuring uniformity and adherence to national standards across states. Educational institutions can now rely on the PCI's regulations without fearing inconsistent state-level interferences. Additionally, states are mandated to align their policies with national bodies, fostering a cohesive educational environment. Future cases involving disputes between state policies and national regulatory bodies are likely to reference this judgment, strengthening the precedence that apex bodies hold supremacy in their respective domains.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Pharmacy Council of India (PCI): A statutory body established under the Pharmacy Act of 1948, responsible for regulating pharmacy education and practice in India. It sets educational standards, accredits institutions, and ensures uniformity in pharmacy curricula.

No Objection Certificate (NOC): A formal legal document issued by relevant authorities indicating that there are no objections to a particular activity—in this case, the establishment of new pharmacy courses in existing institutions.

Affiliation of Examining Authority: Approval required from the affiliating university or bodies that oversee the examinations and academic standards of educational institutions.

Apex Statutory Body: A top-tier government organization with overarching authority in a specific sector. In this context, the PCI serves as the apex body governing pharmacy education.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court's decision in the Zee College of Pharmacy case solidifies the Pharmacy Council of India's paramount authority in regulating pharmacy education across India. By nullifying the State of Uttar Pradesh's attempt to impose its own policies contrary to the PCI's directives, the court has ensured that national standards are upheld uniformly. This judgment not only protects the integrity and quality of pharmacy education but also clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries between state governments and national regulatory bodies. Moving forward, educational institutions and state authorities will need to align their practices with PCI's regulations, fostering a standardized and high-quality pharmacy education system in India.